Stephen Hause v. Dr. Miles, No. 14-6240 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6240 STEPHEN MARK HAUSE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DR. MILES, LCDC Physician; MAJOR JONES, LCDC Supt; THE LEXINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, in their individual and/or official capacities; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (9:13-cv-01271-RMG-BM) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Mark Hause, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Victor Gende, John Earle Tyler, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Justin Tyler Bagwell, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen Mark Hause appeals from the magistrate judge s text orders denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and for the appointment of an expert. relief on appeal. district court. An He also moves for injunctive His civil proceeding is still pending in We dismiss. order denying immediately appealable § 1292(a)(1) (2012). a preliminary interlocutory However, injunction order. during appeal, Hause was released from custody. the 28 pendency is an U.S.C. of this Claims for injunctive relief become moot when a prisoner is no longer subjected to the conditions about which he complains. F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991). district court s denial of Williams v. Griffin, 952 Therefore, Hause s appeal of the preliminary injunctive relief is moot. As to Hause s appeal of the magistrate judge s denial of his motion for an expert, we may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 (1949). [A]n order is final if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Mapp, 521 F.3d 290, (internal 294 (4th Cir. 2008) 2 citations and quotations omitted). court. an This litigation remains pending in the district Thus, the district court s order denying the motion for expert is neither interlocutory or Accordingly, this a final collateral portion order order. of the nor See appeal an id. is appealable at 294-95. dismissed as interlocutory. Based on the foregoing, we dismiss Hause s appeal and deny his dispense motion with for oral injunctive argument relief because pending the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
